It may seem unfair, in the wake of the Massachusetts election and Citizens United, to look with hindsight at Richard Lazarus' recommendations for drafting federal climate legislation, but given that those recommendations are specifically designed to insulate the legislation from the vicissitudes of time, it is perhaps less so in this instance. It is hard not to conclude that controversial procedural innovations are the last thing we need to add onto this legislation. Rather than burden the legislation with heavy armament to ward off future political pressure, our priority should be to get started in a direction that rewards innovation in products and technologies that decrease our carbon footprint, and leave future battles for the future.

One does not have to be a climate scientist to be concerned about the rate of increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Because energy consumption in today's economy is so closely linked with carbon dioxide emissions, legislation limiting or reversing this trend will affect nearly every business and consumer and must overcome enormous political inertia against change.